Blubabluba9990

Hi Blubabluba9990! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Love of Corey (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, thank you for keeping wikipedia safe and accurate. I am one of the original authors of the Dogecoin page. I wanted to reply to you. The statements written, are literally on the www.dogecoin.com webpage: "the fun and friendly internet currency", "instant transactions" watch the video on the main homepage as well. I will add the citation again as it is directly from the source-page. Thank you for letting me know.[1] MazRx (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)"MazRx

dogecoin.com

Okay then. Please just put it in quotation marks and cite it. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your behavior at AfD is the road to being quickly blocked. Please go do some real writing. Mangoe (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. I won't post in AFDs anymore. I do make edits but I am not very active here anyway, I am mostly just a reader. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your AfD responses are not useful at all. Even after being warned, you are still continuing. Please strike out or remove your response.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Blubabluba9990, You wrote "Sorry. I won't post in AfDs anymore" and then carried on anyway. Either back up your words with actual actions, or accept you may get topic banned. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I just really like doing them. Also I don't see anything wrong with my responses. I will try to stop posting in them. I apologize for my actions. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

But can you please expand as to why you find my replies disruptive. If you think that they are too short next time I could try to expand on them, but it gets a little tiring writing a lot over and over again. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

From your nominations at several episode list articles, it seems that you are under the misbelief that the article titles "falsely implies that all episodes of <series name> are here when it is only season xx onward". This could not be further from the truth. {{Infobox television}}, which is used in (currently) 52,511 TV articles, has a single link to a list of episodes page which, by long standing convention is always titled "List of <Foo> episodes". This was not an issue until the last 5 years or so when some lists became so large that they broke the post-expand include size limit, which results in pages larger than 2MB becoming corrupted. For this reason it is necessary to modify code and split some seasons to a sub-page, usually titled "List of <Foo> episodes (seasons 1-x)". The original page is still the main list of episodes, it just links to sub-pages without displaying the contents of some pages. In fact there are no episodes on the LoE page. Most are transcluded from other sub-pages. For example, with Survivor (American TV series) the season 21 episodes aren't actually on List of Survivor (American TV series) episodes at all. They are at Survivor: Nicaragua#Episodes. There is no false claim, it's just how the pages have to be built because of Wikimedia software limitations. What your nominations will do, if "successful", will make a handful of pages inconsistent with 52,000 others. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

It is still misleading. Also the regular pages can be made into redirects kind of like with List of organisms named after famous people or List of unsolved murders in the United Kingdom. A separate page can be made to list both parts. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Blubabluba9990, please note that you are well within your rights to open these RM's, and that any opposition to them should have been commented on at the RM's, not taken to your personal talk page (see the fifth point of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR). -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I was responding to AussieLegend's message here on my talk page however, since he messaged me on my talk page. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Absolute rubbish alex. Blubabluba9990 is a new editor and obviously doesn't understand the limitations of the Wikimedia software or the history behind these names. With less than 400 total edits, he probably doesn't understand a lot of Wikipedia and my intent here was to provide some information in a friendly manner, information that isn't needed at the RM. Please stop trying to cause trouble and police Wikipedia. That's not your job. Blubabluba9990, don't be concerned. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok. And I am a little new. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

That's why I reached out to you. Cheers. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for what happened to the article. Didn't realize it at the time, but this is actually what caused the error. However, I've just updated the LoE article so that Template:Aired episodes is used instead, similarly to how it is used on List of Big Brother (American TV series) episodes (2020–present), List of Hell's Kitchen (American TV series) episodes, and likely many other articles. Apologies again... Magitroopa (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just like you I am an inclusionist Wikipedian which is why re-added the List of fugitives who are no longer sought section to the List of fugitives from justice who disappeared. I think that it should stay as part of the list. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

It doubled the length of the article. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 22:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

If you split glossary, make absolutely sure you maintain page's history including revisions, page creator, etc. See glossary talk page. Thanks.

Ok. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just some advice. You seem to be confused and think you are doing a good thing by trying to split articles everywhere. However that's generally not appreciated by many people who actually contribute to those articles and usually requires specialized knowledge to know when, where, and how to split a topic. Suggesting a split in a talk page is fine, but if you don't find other regular editors of that article who are also interested in the split (or no response at all) I suggest leaving the page alone. Ergzay (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok. There are other ways to tone down length of pages, such as seeing whether or not the article overuses references or wikitext. But condensing length is something that is generally considered by Wikipedia editors. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

To be clear, I'm all for cleaning up articles, paring down either repeated information, rewriting paragraphs in a shorter way to convey the same information, or cutting down references that all convey the same information. Those are all worthy goals and even great things to do. However slashing and cutting an article into multiple articles when it's important for that information to stay together just in the name of "the wiki markup size is too big" is not a sufficient condition for a split. It has to actually improve the article by splitting it by taking a topic that isn't quite related to the main topic and making a new page or even several pages for it. Much of what I've seen you and others do (I've commented similarly on their talk pages) is not that however. Ergzay (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

To be fair, I do agree with you, there are other ways to condense articles. However, you seem to think splitting is frowned upon, which is not true, especially when the page reaches a certain length. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 16:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Splitting articles isn't that great of an idea, as it will create a lot of extra pages that really don't need to be there in the first place. There is nothing wrong with an article here having great length, as it makes the page more informational and therefore better as a result. I would recommend leaving those articles the way they are, unless there is a majority vote on splitting. TigerBlazer (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

It is a good idea for really long pages, as in pages that are so long they are hard to navigate. A few of the pages in Special:LongPages suffer from excessive wikitext rather than prose size. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 21:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Efforts to focus on article length invariably lead to bad content. The most widely edited and read articles, e.g. Presidency of Donald Trump, have been intensely scrutinized on a continuous basis. Shortening for its own sake only encourages bad cuts. Any content or references that need to be cut can be discussed and evaluated on their merits. SPECIFICO talk 18:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

If an article gets too long, it can become a pain to read, and can often cause loading problems. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is yet another non-policy based argument in your ongoing edit war: it is not true at all. Consistent in terms of the MOS, sure--but in your sense, no. If you want to compare an article with another article, that other article needs to be a high-quality article. Otherwise you might just compare any article to a shitty article, and use the shitty article as a standard. If you can point to an FA or a GA, where that content has undergone peer review, then you might have a case. As it stands, you don't. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't necessarily matter the quality of the articles itself. The articles are not of poor quality, at least not from my observations, and it is best to have articles be consistent with each other. Besides, it looks better to have the reception and box office in a seperate table and is easier to navigate. And for a good-quality article, I would say the best article of this nature is List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, which uses the multiple table layout that other articles use. And I am not the only person involved in the edit war. I will address this on the article's talk page, since it is better to continue the discussion there. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply